|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 371 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 31
The High Court of Allahabad rejected an application under sub-section (2) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the depreciation rate for artificial silk manufacturing machinery. The court upheld the claim of the assessee based on evidence provided and previous case law, concluding that no statable question of law arose for a reference to the Tribunal. The application was rejected with no order as to costs. (Case citation: 1991 (4) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1991 (4) TMI 30
The High Court of Allahabad allowed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer two questions of law to the court regarding the correctness of vacating the Commissioner's order under section 263 and the justification of the assessment made under section 143(1). The application was allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 300.
-
1991 (4) TMI 29
The High Court of Allahabad rejected an application under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the validity of an assessment order issued without recorded reasons under section 148. The court found the assessment to be void and non est due to the lack of recorded reasons, affirming the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The application was dismissed, and the assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 125.
-
1991 (4) TMI 28
The High Court of Allahabad upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's claim under section 80J of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1973-74, based on a previous ruling for the assessment year 1972-73. The court found no distinguishing features to warrant a different view and ruled in favor of the assessee. (Citation: 1991 (4) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1991 (4) TMI 27
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer two questions of law regarding the status of Shri Mukesh Kumar as a benamidar and the treatment of his investments to the court for opinion. The application was allowed in part, and the assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 300.
-
1991 (4) TMI 26
The High Court of Allahabad held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act after April 1, 1976, even if penalty proceedings were initiated before that date. The court's decision was based on the amendment of section 274(2) of the Act, which took away the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to pass penalty orders. The judgment favored the assessee and ruled against the Department.
-
1991 (4) TMI 25
Issues:
Whether penalties under the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, and the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, aggregating to Rs. 1,64,014 could be allowed as a deduction in working out the business income of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1963-64.
Analysis:
The dispute revolves around the claim of the assessee that penalties amounting to Rs. 1,64,014 imposed under the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, and the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, should be deductible as business expenses due to financial difficulties causing non-payment by the due dates. However, the Income-tax Officer and appellate authorities, including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, rejected this claim. The crux of the matter lies in whether such penalties can be considered permissible deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The judgment emphasizes that only expenses incidental to and wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying on business are deductible for computing taxable income. It asserts that penalties incurred due to contravention of rules and regulations do not qualify as commercial losses or legitimate business expenses. The court highlights that conducting business in violation of the law is not a normal business practice and expenses arising from such conduct cannot be deemed necessary for business operations. Citing precedents like Haji Aziz and Abdul Shahoor Bros. v. CIT, the court reiterates that expenses paid as penalties for breaching statutory provisions do not meet the criteria of being wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business.
The judgment refers to past decisions of the court, such as Mahabir Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT, and Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which held that penalties under the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, are not allowable as business expenditures. The court aligns with these precedents and concurs with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's view that the penalties totaling Rs. 1,64,014 imposed on the assessee are not deductible in computing taxable income. Consequently, the court rules in favor of the Department and against the assessee, affirming that the penalties cannot be considered permissible deductions for business income calculation.
In conclusion, the court answers the referred question in the affirmative, supporting the Department's stance on disallowing the penalties as deductible expenses. No costs are awarded in this matter.
-
1991 (4) TMI 24
Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus sought against Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax for refund adjustment.
2. Legality of adjusting refunds against individual demands.
3. Nature of assessments against the first petitioner.
4. Consent for adjustment of refunds by the petitioners.
5. Permissibility of petitioners to resile from their earlier stand.
Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax for refunds due to the second petitioner, which were adjusted against individual demands of the first petitioner. The assessments against the first petitioner for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were completed after a search under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, resulting in demands and initiation of recovery proceedings. The petitioners initially agreed to adjustments but later filed a writ petition claiming the adjustments were illegal due to the protective nature of the assessments against the first petitioner.
The petitioners argued that the demands against the first petitioner were protective and could not be legally recovered on a protective basis. The respondents contended that the assessments were substantive, irrespective of the protective label, and the income assessed had not been taxed elsewhere. The court declined to delve into the nature of assessments as the matter was pending before the appellate authority. The adjustment of tax dues against refunds due to the second petitioner was found legal, supported by letters from both petitioners consenting to the adjustments.
The court emphasized that the adjustments were made at the petitioners' request and found no illegality in the process. It was noted that if the second petitioner had not consented to the adjustments, the amounts could have been recovered due to the company's indebtedness to the first petitioner. Therefore, the court rejected the writ petition summarily, stating that the petitioners could not retract from their earlier consent for adjustments based on the protective nature of the assessments, especially when the adjustments were made with their agreement.
-
1991 (4) TMI 23
The petitioner challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The petitioner alleged not being provided with reasons for reassessment. The court directed the Income-tax Officer to provide reasons to the petitioner before proceeding with the assessment.
-
1991 (4) TMI 22
Issues:
- Petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash order rejecting applications under section 273A for assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77.
- Late filing of returns for assessment years leading to levying of interest and penalties.
- Imposition of interest under section 139(8) for late filing of returns.
- Imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(a) for late filing of returns.
- Petitioner's application under section 273A(1) for waiver of penalties and interest.
- Consideration of reduction in interest by the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order rejecting applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77. The petitioner revised the return for 1974-75 due to claimed differences in rates of papers, leading to a subsequent assessment. Returns for 1975-76 and 1976-77 were voluntarily filed, but interest was levied for late filing. Penalties were also imposed for late filing, with reductions granted in some cases. The petitioner applied for waiver of penalties and interest under section 273A(1) for the three assessment years.
Interest was imposed under section 139(8) for late filing of returns, with specific amounts charged for each assessment year. The court noted that interest is a form of compensation, not penalty, levied to compensate for delayed tax payments. The court observed that the Assessing Officer did not consider the circumstances when the revised returns were filed, indicating no intention to evade tax. However, the question arose whether the High Court could intervene under article 226 to reduce or fix the interest amount.
The court held that under article 226, it exercises supervisory power, not appellate jurisdiction. As the Assessing Officer did not consider the basic character of interest payable under section 139(8), the court decided to send the case back to the Commissioner of Income-tax for reconsideration. The court partially allowed the petition for the assessment year 1975-76 and fully allowed it for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77. The Commissioner was directed to reevaluate the petitioner's petitions considering the circumstances leading to delayed tax payments within three months. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 21
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of section 11 and section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1983-84.
Analysis:
The case involved a public charitable trust seeking exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1983-84. The trust had invested its assets in shares of private companies but failed to convert them into specified investments before November 30, 1983, as required by section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer denied the exemption, citing the amended provisions effective from April 1, 1983. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed exemption, stating that the amended provisions applied only for the accounting year after November 30, 1983. The Tribunal, following a previous order, held the trust eligible for exemption despite the amendment.
During the hearing, it was argued that the trust was not eligible for exemption due to the amendment in section 13(1)(d) from April 1, 1983. However, the amicus curiae contended that the trust had time until November 30, 1983, to convert investments, and the provisions were not applicable to the assessment year 1983-84. Circular No. 596 of the Board clarified that section 13(1)(d) would be applicable from the assessment year 1984-85, not 1983-84. The Court noted that the trust's previous year ended before April 1, 1983, and the conversion deadline was after the end of the relevant previous year. The provisions were to be applied from the assessment year commencing after April 1, 1983. Therefore, the trust was not to lose exemption under section 11 for the assessment year 1983-84 due to the application of section 13(1)(d).
The Court emphasized that the trust did not fail to comply with the provisions of section 11(5) during the relevant previous year. The amendments made it clear that denial of exemption would be considered for the subsequent assessment year if investments were not converted by November 30, 1983. The Court concurred with the Board's decision that section 13(1)(d) would be applicable from the assessment year 1984-85. Consequently, the trust could not be denied exemption for the assessment year 1983-84. The Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, and no costs were awarded. Both judges agreed on the decision.
-
1991 (4) TMI 20
The High Court of Karnataka upheld the disallowance of the claim for investment allowance made by the Income-tax Officer under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on previous rulings in similar cases.
-
1991 (4) TMI 19
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under sections 144A and 144B.
2. Charitable nature of object clause 2(h) of the trust deed.
3. Applicability of section 11(3) to donations made to other charitable trusts.
4. Substantial interest of the trust authors/trustees in M/s J. K. Commercial Corporation.
5. Adequacy of interest/rent received by the trust under section 13(2)(a).
6. Applicability of section 13(2)(h) to shares received by the trust.
7. Impact of share transactions on the trust's charitable status under section 2(15).
8. Apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order dated September 27, 1977.
9. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in reassessment proceedings.
10. Applicability of the second proviso to section 13(1)(c) to transactions before June 1, 1979.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner:
The Tribunal found that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by giving directions beyond the purview of the draft assessment order and the assessee's objections. The court upheld this view, stating that any such directions should have been preceded by a notice and hearing under section 144A. Thus, the Tribunal's decision was affirmed in favor of the assessee.
2. Charitable Nature of Object Clause 2(h):
Clause 2(h) of the trust deed, which involves establishing industrial homes for teaching arts and handicrafts to unemployed persons, was interpreted by the Tribunal as charitable. The court agreed, noting that payments made under this clause were akin to stipends rather than regular wages, thereby affirming the clause's charitable nature.
3. Applicability of Section 11(3):
The Tribunal opined that donations to other charitable trusts were within the trustees' powers under clause 2(k) of the trust deed and did not constitute application of income for non-charitable purposes. The court agreed, holding that such contributions do not attract the provisions of section 11(3). This decision was rendered in favor of the assessee.
4. Substantial Interest in M/s J. K. Commercial Corporation:
The Tribunal found that the authors/trustees' shareholding in M/s J. K. Commercial Corporation was only 13%, below the 20% threshold defined by Explanation 3 to section 13(4). The court upheld this finding, ruling in favor of the assessee.
5. Adequacy of Interest/Rent:
The Tribunal determined that the interest rates on loans and the rent for leased properties were not inadequate. The court agreed, noting the secured nature of the loans and the seasonal rental income from the hill station property. Thus, this issue was resolved in favor of the assessee.
6. Applicability of Section 13(2)(h) to Shares:
The Tribunal held that bonus shares received by the trust could not be considered an investment under section 13(2)(h). The court concurred, stating that the issuance of bonus shares was a bona fide transaction and did not fall within the mischief of the said section.
7. Impact of Share Transactions:
The Tribunal found that the trust's dealings in shares were not by way of business but were prudent investment changes. The court upheld this finding, affirming that such transactions did not affect the trust's charitable status under section 2(15).
8. Apparent Mistake in Tribunal's Order:
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's rectification application was not challenged. The court, therefore, affirmed the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee.
9. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer:
The assessee's counsel conceded that these questions raised minor issues. The court declined to address these questions, effectively leaving the Tribunal's findings undisturbed.
10. Applicability of the Second Proviso to Section 13(1)(c):
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to section 13(1)(c) did not save transactions made before June 1, 1979, from the disability under section 13(2)(h). The court did not address this issue directly as it was conceded to be minor by the assessee's counsel.
Conclusion:
The court answered the critical questions in favor of the assessee, affirming the charitable nature of the trust's activities and the adequacy of its transactions under the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act. The reference was disposed of without costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 18
The High Court of Allahabad delivered a judgment on a case involving the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court considered questions related to relief under section 80J and depreciation rates for an assessee-company engaged in manufacturing artificial silk. The court referred to a previous case and ruled in favor of the assessee, agreeing with the decision in the earlier case. The court answered both questions in favor of the assessee and against the department. No costs were awarded. (Case Citation: 1991 (4) TMI 18 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1991 (4) TMI 17
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Allahabad was presented with a question by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the validity of reopening the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved an assessee company that had received a sum of Rs. 2,20,192 as compensation in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment for the assessment year 1955-56 to include this amount in the income of that year. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the reassessment proceedings entirely, leading to the reference to the High Court by the Revenue.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the grounds that there was no material to show that any part of the compensation amount represented taxable income of the assessee. It was highlighted that the interest amount of Rs. 12,500 was the only income component, which was less than Rs. 50,000, making the action under section 147(a) invalid after eight years. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer had not properly considered the nature of the compensation amount, as it was deemed a capital receipt, with only the interest being a revenue receipt. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid by the Tribunal.
The High Court further analyzed the situation and concurred with the Tribunal's findings. It was established that only the interest amount of Rs. 12,500 was taxable income, while the compensation amount of Rs. 2,05,000 constituted a capital receipt. Given this distinction, the reopening of the assessment after eight years was deemed unsustainable under section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the incorrectness of the Income-tax Officer's assumption that the entire compensation amount was a revenue receipt.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the inaccuracy of the Income-tax Officer's approach in treating the compensation amount as entirely taxable income. The judgment highlighted the distinction between capital and revenue receipts, ultimately leading to the invalidation of the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) due to the nature of the received amounts.
-
1991 (4) TMI 16
Issues:
Interpretation of section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the liability to pay interest on advance tax underestimation.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1982-83, questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's decision on the liability of the assessee to pay interest under section 216 of the Act. The assessee, a company taken over by Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., filed a statement of advance tax declaring nil income initially but later estimated income at Rs. 4 crores before the last instalment. The assessing authority completed the assessment at Rs. 6,56,77,720, leading to a dispute on interest liability under section 216.
The Income-tax Officer, while rectifying mistakes in the assessment order, opined that interest under section 216 was not chargeable as the assessee had filed the necessary forms correctly. However, the Commissioner revised this decision, holding the assessee liable for interest under section 216 due to underestimation in the statement filed under section 209A(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal, on appeal, emphasized the legislative distinction between "statement" and "estimate" of advance tax, ruling in favor of the assessee.
The High Court delved into the legislative provisions of sections 209, 209A, and 216 of the Act to determine the applicability of interest under section 216. It highlighted that interest is attracted when an assessee underestimates advance tax in the first two instalments or defers payment on part of income. The Court emphasized that in this case, no estimate was filed under section 212, and the statement under section 209A(1)(a) was correctly submitted based on the latest regular assessment showing nil income.
The Court elucidated the distinction between a statement and an estimate under the Act, emphasizing that the assessee complied with the statutory requirements by filing a statement of advance tax under section 209A(1)(a) without the need to estimate current income. It noted that the legislative provisions clearly differentiated between a statement and an estimate, as evident from various sections like 217, 218, and 273 of the Act. The Court emphasized that interest under section 216 is attracted only when an estimate is found to be an underestimate compared to subsequent estimates, which was not the case here.
Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that interest under section 216 was not applicable in a scenario where the assessee filed a statement under section 209A(1)(a) without the need to estimate income. The Court stressed the importance of interpreting provisions as per their plain language and opting for interpretations favoring the taxpayer, particularly in cases involving penal interest. The judgment concluded by answering the reference question affirmatively in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 15
The High Court of Bombay delivered a judgment on wealth-tax assessments for various years. The Tribunal referred questions of law regarding rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. The court directed the Tribunal to include only ornaments studded with precious stones in the net wealth of the assessee based on previous judgments. No costs were awarded.
-
1991 (4) TMI 14
The High Court of Bombay delivered a judgment on cross references related to the assessee's assessment for the year 1974-75. The court answered the questions of law in favor of the Revenue based on previous court decisions. The second question regarding the inclusion of 'debenture redemption reserve' and 'gratuity reserve' in the computation of the assessee company's capital was answered in favor of the Revenue, with a direction to determine any excess gratuity reserve. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted regarding this question.
-
1991 (4) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Justification of the Tribunal's finding on the assessee's discharge of onus under Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the Tribunal's cancellation of the penalty.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an assessment year of 1969-70 involving a partnership firm engaged in excise business. The Income-tax Officer estimated the income at Rs. 1,15,930, leading to a net taxable income of Rs. 95,200. A penalty notice was issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was later imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 1,06,930. However, the Tribunal, upon hearing the quantum appeal and penalty appeal together, reduced the income to Rs. 39,000 and deleted the penalty. The Tribunal reasoned that the estimate was on a peculiar basis, and conscious concealment was not established. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of fraud or wilful neglect, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision and found it unsustainable. The significant difference between the returned and assessed income, exceeding 20% of the assessed income, attracted the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), shifting the burden of proof to the assessee to rebut the presumption of concealment. The Court noted that the assessee had not provided any explanation to the penalty notice, further strengthening the presumption of concealment. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal's reliance on the absence of fraud or wilful neglect was misplaced in law due to the substantial difference in income figures.
Regarding the questions referred, the Court declined to answer the first question as the Tribunal had not explicitly stated that the assessee had discharged the onus under the Explanation. The second question was answered in the negative, directing a rehearing of the penalty appeal to ensure a proper disposal according to law. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to reconsider the penalty appeal in light of the legal principles and the burden of proof under the relevant provisions.
In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, highlighting the legal implications of the substantial difference in income figures and the failure of the assessee to provide any explanation. The Court directed a rehearing of the penalty appeal to ensure a proper assessment of the penalty under the applicable legal framework.
-
1991 (4) TMI 12
Issues:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 2,128 from the gratuity reserve should be reduced in the computation of capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1971-72.
2. Whether rule 4 can be invoked for reducing the capital base when relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowed for the assessment year 1971-72.
3. Whether the dividend declared out of the general reserve should be reduced in computing the capital base for surtax purposes under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1972-73.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The judgment addressed the question of whether the amount of Rs. 2,128 from the gratuity reserve should be reduced in the computation of the capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1971-72. The court examined the facts related to the gratuity reserve and concluded that the amount in question did not represent gratuity liability for the assessment year 1970-71 or any earlier year but pertained to the financial year 1970 and was deducted in the assessment for the year 1971-72. The court disagreed with the contention that the amount should be reduced and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that it did not form part of the gratuity reserve for the relevant period.
Issue 2:
Regarding the invocation of rule 4 for reducing the capital base when relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowed for the assessment year 1971-72, the court referred to relevant Supreme Court judgments. It was agreed by both counsels that the question should be answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee based on the Supreme Court's decision in a specific case. The court provided a clear directive on this issue in alignment with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Issue 3:
The judgment also considered whether the dividend declared out of the general reserve should be reduced in computing the capital base for surtax purposes under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1972-73. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the court concluded that the question should be answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. The decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions and legal precedents, leading to a ruling against reducing the dividend declared out of the general reserve in the computation of the capital base for surtax purposes.
Overall, the judgment provided detailed analysis and reasoning for each issue raised in the departmental reference, incorporating relevant legal principles and precedents to arrive at the final decisions in favor of the assessee for some issues and in favor of the Revenue for others.
....
|
9911796707
